Home » Uncategorized » Letter to the FDA About Chlorine Dioxide

Letter to the FDA About Chlorine Dioxide

Dear FDA,

Your web page about Chlorine Dioxide has multiple mistakes: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-warns-consumers-about-dangerous-and-potentially-life-threatening-side-effects-miracle-mineral

It is not the same as Clorox bleach (Sodium Hypochlorite) because it has a lower oxidation potential.

ChemicalOxidation Potential
Ozone2.07 volts
Hydrogen Peroxide1.80 volts
Sodium Hypochlorite1.49 volts
Oxygen1.3 volts
Chlorine Dioxide0.95 volts

It’s been shown that Chlorine Dioxide isn’t strong enough to oxidize body cells or gut bacteria at therapeutic doses, but it will oxidize many pathogens like viruses that are small and weakly held together.

Many people argue Chlorine Dioxide is unsafe because it’s used as a bleaching agent, but if Clorox were used to bleach that same paper, there would be nothing left!

The process of oxidation with household bleach produces dangerous hydrocarbons such as chloroform. ClO2, on the other hand, doesn’t create toxic by-products. Therefore, unlike household bleach, ClO2 won’t cause mutations or cancer. To scare people by equating it to the dangerous Clorox everyone has in their household is a lie.

I believe Chlorine Dioxide will eventually replace the more toxic chlorine mix used in swimming pool systems, and the fluoride in municipal water treatment, since it’s both safer and more effective. In truth, Chlorine Dioxide is far from the danger the FDA claims: it is used in a wide range of industrial applications.


Here is a brief video demonstrating how Chlorine Dioxide isn’t the poisonous product you claim it is:

Chlorine Dioxide has been used in water treatment since 1944 because it’s effective in a wide range of pHs, and doesn’t break down into toxic residues.

There are testimonials for ClO2 treating everything from cancer to HIV, and even stopping the progression of Alzheimer’s. There is even a US patent showing that injections of Chlorine Dioxide into cancerous tissue can safely treat it. I’ve read that 20 million people worldwide have taken the medicine, and that it has treated Covid-19! This pretty much proves your web page is incorrect.

The lethal (LD50) dose of Chlorine Dioxide is 100 times higher than the typical protocol of 3-6 drops in 1/2 cup of water per hour. In one study, rats were fed it orally at a rate of 40 PPM for 90 days and found no ill effects. There is zero chance of dehydration or other problems at reasonable doses. The way you talk about it on your website without even mentioning safe dose ranges is dishonest.

Here’s a link to a great paper by Andreas Kalcker: https://keithcu.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/English.pdf It talks about the history, safety, and mechanism of action.

CloSYS Moutwash 700x880 1

WaterPureWorld also has a nice shop.


Ultrasonic humidifier for inhaling ClO2

FDA Response

Thank you for writing the Division of Drug Information in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

We appreciate you taking the time to share your information with us. 

We appreciate your effort in contacting the FDA to share your concerns with us. As discussed in the FDA News Release on Miracle Mineral Solution, the FDA warns consumers not to purchase or drink products such as Mineral Solution, Miracle Mineral Supplement, MMS, Chlorine Dioxide Protocol, Water Purification Solution, or other similar products do to serious and potentially life-threatening side effects. These products are not FDA-approved for treating COVID-19.

Please find up-to-date information on the FDA Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Main Page and the CDC COVID-19 Main Page.

Reply to FDA

Dear FDA,

Thank you very much for responding to me! Unfortunately, I believe some of your information is incorrect.

I know you all are doing your best, but I find it a little ironic you are trying to outlaw a medicine that safely treats (via selective oxidation) half the diseases known to man, including Covid-19: https://mmstestimonials.co/ It’s been used for 100 years in medicine, for example to sanitize donated blood. It’s also known to work as a mouthwash. People using it have no plaque build up because it oxidizes the bacteria which create it. You can read glowing reviews online.

Chlorine Dioxide seems to not touch healthy tissue or even gut bacteria, but it will travel all around the body until it finds a negatively charged pathogen and rip apart a virus like Covid-19. Here’s an article talking about it treating all the Covid-19 patients in one city in Bolivia: https://madridmarket.es/san-jose-de-chiquitos-ha-controlado-absolutamente-la-pandemia-con-dioxido-de-cloro-afirma-garmain-caballero-alcalde-del-municipio-de-41-000-vecinos/

I believe it was mostly done intravenously, which is easy to cycle fresh Chlorine Dioxide throughout the body 24 hours a day. Apparently ClO2 only lasts inside for about an hour. However, it seems to work almost as well orally. In the case of cancer, people drink it for months, instead of chemotherapy.

The article above is not in English, but it’s worth translating given the stunning results. If you really believe Chlorine Dioxide doesn’t work, you would be able to explain alternate theories for that result. It would be great for someone to try at least, and put that on the FDA web page. Can you propose another theory to explain that apparent city-wide medical miracle?

I read an article in Business Insider claiming that the Chlorine Dioxide results in Bolivia were fake, but they never include any quotes from doctors who actually treated the patients. It’s amazing how even professors of medicine don’t notice when an article only tells half the story. Has anyone at the FDA talked to any of those doctors in Bolivia?

By one recent count, 5,000 doctors in 25 countries are using Chlorine Dioxide as treatment or prevention of Covid-19, from age 0 to age 105. The cost of treatment is estimated to be about $5. Has anyone at the NIH talked to any of those 5,000 doctors? Is there any chance that the FDA favors novel expensive drugs, even if they are less safe and effective because the patent scheme allows them to sell the production for 100s of dollars?

There was recently a clinical trial to test the safety and efficacy of 10 hours daily oral use of Chlorine Dioxide against Covid-19, and it found that the treated patients were all almost entirely feeling better at the end of the study. The research has some limitations and questions, but the tremendous results are being ignored. Instead of trying to validate the results with better studies, they are ridiculing it, and pretending it doesn’t exist. They’d rather keep working on their new drug or gene therapy, which they can patent and sell for millions.

If you don’t think Chlorine Dioxide is a good selective oxidizer, then what do you recommend inetad? Why don’t you don’t mention any better substitutes using this powerful mechanism of action?

The dangerous side effects seem only when inhaled in large quantities, or ingesting far outside the recommended dose. 2 cups of salt would kill a human, so you how come you don’t go around prosecuting people who own table salt? How can you say something that is currently used in mouthwash and water treatment is unsafe without talking about the concentration or dose?

The typical dose of Chlorine Dioxide is just a few drops in 1/2 cup of water per hour. It’s been said it breaks down into salts and oxygen, or have you heard something else?

A US Army veteran told me it saved his life when he caught malaria. I have heard it’s quite widely used in US military hospitals. However, they have to do it secretly or you will take their license away. Bureaucracies are great at unintentionally killing people.

There’s a lot of great scientific information in that Andreas Kalcker paper explaining how it can be used for Covid-19. Can you find any mistakes?

The Chlorine Dioxide page on the FDA website has zero scientific studies it links to. How can you be so certain your position is correct with zero evidence to back it up?

There are questions about how Chlorine Dioxide can be dangerous to a virus, but not healthy tissue, which are made of the same parts. Andreas Kalcker says that ClO2 acts on acidic mediums and it’s also size-selective. There are millions of people who have taken the typical 3 drops an hour protocol for one disease or another, in many cases for weeks or months. The typical dose is about 189 mg / day! There was a study from 1982 which showed no ill effects from 12 weeks of daily oral use. The WHO also did an extensive survey and found a lot of evidence Chlorine Dioxide is safe in reasonable doses.

The government spends a lot of time and money on vaccines. However, which of the two is easier for the body to accomplish?

  • To build an immune response and neutralize Covid-19 particles faster than an extremely infectious variant of a virus can replicate.
  • Drink a potion which selectively oxidizes all the virus particles.

Dr. Manuel Aparicio has treated thousands of patients using Chlorine Dioxide in Mexico. Here is a video I recommend you watch:


I’ve read that Chlorine Dioxide is enhanced by Dimethyl Sulfate, which dissolves the ClO2 so that it can be carried deeper into the body. Maybe you should fund some studies along the lines of safe oxidants, and solvents for them, if you don’t have any good information right now.

Please read through the pages of testimonials and consider the possibility that you are wrong: what would happen to the drug industry if this could safely treat half of the most common diseases known to man?

If you could respond to these questions, I would really appreciate it!

Not only is (in my mind) the government wrongly prosecuting people over Chlorine Dioxide, and effectively doing the bidding of Big Pharma, Big Tech has also gotten involved. Searching for “MMS Chlorine Dioxide” on Google takes you takes you to page after page telling you it’s unsafe, whereas DuckDuckGo has a much more balanced mix of content. Google has clearly tweaked their algorithms to present only one side of the facts — in spite of decades of studies showing it is has a safe therapeutic window.

I put this quote in my book, and I believe it applies to the FDA:

Brilliance is typically the act of an individual, but incredible stupidity can usually be traced to an organization.

—Jon Bentley

Update: Dr. Peter McCullough discusses Chlorine Dioxide for MonkeyPox.


  1. Hi Keith,

    You wrote “Chlorine Dioxide is positively charged and also a mild oxidizer, which makes it very selective.” Actually, that is an incorrect statement. Being Positively Charged and a Mild Oxidizer does not make it selective. Rather, selectivity of ClO2 between humans and bacteria is based not on their different biochemistry, but on their different size. Finally, Chlorine Dioxide is not a mild oxidizer. It is a strong oxidizer.

    Chlorine dioxide is a size selective antimicrobial agent which can kill micron sized organisms rapidly but cannot make real harm to much larger organisms like animals or humans as it is not able to penetrate deeply into their living tissues.

    Further, the disinfection of living tissues with aqueous ClO2 solutions has a very wide therapeutic window: while surprisingly low concentrations and short contact times are able to kill bacteria, much higher concentrations and residence times are still safe to use. Which cannot be said for other disinfections in use today within the medical field, in dentistry for example, where they use Hydrogen Peroxide or even Ozone therapies.

    As for the protocols used by people orally taking aqueous ClO2, they are taking it in very safe dosages, far from any dosage that would remotely link it to being toxic. There is one notable exception: inhaling high concentration ClO2 gases for an extended time can be dangerous for human health because the alveolar membrane is extremely thin (a mere 1-2 microns and in some places even below 1 micron). The effect of ClO2 in these membranes is somewhat counterbalanced, however, by the intense blood circulation there.

    Read more in the published Medical Journal.

    While the above article does not link to the toxicity of oral ingestion in man, here is one that does talk about it, from 1982. Controlled clinical evaluations of chlorine dioxide, chlorite and chlorate in man.. At this point. It is a coverup by the Mainstream Media, Far Left Organizations and controlled Democrat-led employees in the FDA.

    From the study: “No definitive finding of detrimental physiological impact was made in any of the three phases of this human investigation of the relative safety and tolerance of oral chlorine disinfectant ingestion. In several cases, statistically significant trends were associated with treatment; however, none of these trends were judged to have immediate physiological consequence.

    One cannot rule out the possibility that, over a longer treatment period, these trends might indeed achieve proportions of clinical importance. However, within the limits of the study, the relative safety of oral ingestion of chlorine dioxide and its metabolites, chlorite and chlorate, was demonstrated by the absence of detrimental physiological response.”

    • Thanks for replying!

      I will go through your notes more. However, I disagree Chlorine Dioxide is a strong oxidizer, at least compared to things like Ozone or hydrogen peroxide. Those oxidize everything they run into, whereas Chlorine Dioxide will travel all around the body and bloodstream until it runs into something negatively charged and weakly held together like a virus, and oxidize it. It’s selective since it doesn’t oxidize everything, only pathogens.

      I tweaked the words based on your feedback. Thanks!

  2. You can analyze the EPA report on chlorine dioxide: https://archive.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/web/pdf/chlorine_dioxide_red.pdf. From this, I extracted the information on the toxicity of chlorine dioxide. The ‘Protocol 1000’ recommends the application of 3 drops every hour for eight hours, or a total of 24 drops. The amount of chlorine dioxide generated from a single drop (0.05 ml) of the 22.4% sodium chlorite solution I calculated to be 7.9 mg: Density of sodium chlorite at 22.4% is 1.183 g/ml, the chemical reaction with HCl is 80% efficient (5 NaClO2 + 4 HCl → 5 NaCl + 4 ClO2 + 2 H2O), the stoichiometric ratio ClO2/NaClo2 = 0.746. Calculation: 0.05ml x 1.183g/ml * 0.224 * 0.8 * 0.746 = 7.9 mg.

    So 24 drops amount to 189 mg. The LD50 for an 80 kg person would be 23.36 g, the 24 drops amount to 0.81% of the LD50. Compare that to the RDA of table salt (1.5 g) and its LD50 (for an 80 kg adult) of 240 g, the 1.5 g of salt amounts to 0.63% of its LD50. Furthermore, the LOAEL (Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level) foe chlorine dioxide is 6 mg/kg/day and the NOAEL (No Observed Adverse Effect Level) is 3 g/kg/day or 240 mg/day for an 80 kg adult. Clearly, even at the highest amounts (24 drops/day) this cannot be considered harmful.

    In 2012, while visiting my mom in Germany, I saw that her caretaker had swollen finger knuckles and I asked her whether she had arthritis. She said yes, and showed me that two of her fingers on her right hand were stiff. I offered her my MMS travel kit and after only five days, the stiffness and swelling was gone! I couldn’t believe my eyes. That must have been early onset of arthritis. It can come from infected teeth…

    Then I want to share one more thing: Heart disease and the Zeta Potential. I am taking Zeta Aid every day for my mild arrhythmia. It was originally formulated by Dr. T.C. McDaniel who stumbled upon the research of Riddick. I have Riddick’s book and its part on cardiovascular disease can be read here:


    Zeta Aid is composed of beneficial electrolytes, these charge up the blood particles and thereby eliminating the formation of bacterial biofilms or blood clots.

  3. Copied text based on a series of Tweets by a supposed Systems Biologist PhD, https://twitter.com/ZanotelliVRT/status/1341079076115795969

    1) The FDA says it “develops into *a* dangerous bleach”. Thus saying that ‘It is not the same as bleach because’ is not contradicting the FDA at all. After all the compound is used for industrial bleaching.

    2) Your linked paper is not a scientific, peer reviewed source.

    3) You claim that it cant be dangerous because many people do it. Just because many people do something doesn’t make it safe.

    4) ” ClO2, on the other hand, oxidizes without adding an atom of its own”
    Oxidation destroyed molecules by taking electrons. This is independent of the addition of an atom of its own.

    5) “There is zero chance of dehydration”. Dehydration would be a secondary effect of chemical burning of your digestive track. Swallowing a corrosive solution such as one containing ClO2 can definitely cause this.

    6) All your theoretical arguments for safety are countered by the fact that a) there are reports of people having severe side effects of swallowing MMS and b) there are no substantiated reports (i.e. clinical trials) besides hearsay that it does anything good.

    Final words: If you want to take the chance to potentially harm yourself for no proven benefit, go for it!

    But trying to convince others to follow you is simply not okay.

    • As I mentioned in the post, comparing it to bleach is wrong for 2 reasons:

      1. It’s a milder oxidizer, that won’t harm body tissue. (That’s why it’s used to sanitize donated blood, and in mouthwash.)
      2. It won’t generate dangerous by-products like Chloroform.

      It might be a bleaching agent, but that doesn’t mean it’s unsafe (since it’s milder) and it’s a bad term to use since #2 doesn’t happen. I presume you know about this issue. Using the term bleach is meant to scare people by telling a half-truth. Lemon juice is also a bleach agent, but that doesn’t make it deadly. Note: the FDA doesn’t call it a bleaching agent, but bleach!

      It’s ridiculous to discount a paper and make no response simply because it’s not peer-reviewed. Maybe I shouldn’t read your tweets until they are reviewed? It’s not a difficult paper, why don’t you attempt to analyze it, and try to find mistakes? You have a strong biology background, I’m just a computer programmer.

      I claim it’s not dangerous because it’s been proven not to oxidize body tissue, and it breaks down into safe by-products. What other measures would you use to evaluate whether Chlorine Dioxide is safe besides those two?

      I understand that oxidization destroys certain molecules, and in this case, the virus lipid layer. The point about exchanging atoms is that it causes #2, whereas ClO2 does not exchange atoms, only electrons.

      The reason why dehydration won’t happen is because, as I described in the post, the proper dose is a few drops of ClO2 in ½ cup of water. That won’t be strong enough to burn you. You are ignoring the concept of concentration when talking about safety.

      The people having severe side effects from taking ClO2 are taking it the wrong dose. It would be like banning table salt because some people ate 2 cups of it and died. 20 million people have taken the proper dose and felt better, why don’t they matter? Why do we ban products because some people misuse it? Why not push for more education on safety?

      There are plenty of benefits to ClO2 since it safely oxidizes pathogens. You ignore all the testimonials, the scientific paper, the concept of selective oxidization, and the fact it’s been used for 100 years in medicine, to make a statement there is no proven benefit. In fact, why do so many companies sell products based on it if there’s no benefit? I only listed two in my post, but there are quite a few others I’ve found.

      I appreciate you reading it and giving me your critiques!

  4. I maintain that according to dictionary definition of bleach, Chlorine dioxide is definitely one. It fulfill both the criteria of usage as whitener and disinfectant: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/bleach_2
    Your ad hoc redefinition of the word ‘bleach’ just to fit your narrative is really not fair in my opinion and is hard to argue against.

    “It’s ridiculous to discount a paper and make no response simply because it’s not peer-reviewed. Maybe I shouldn’t read your tweets until they are reviewed? It’s not a difficult paper, why don’t you attempt to analyze it, and try to find mistakes? You have a strong biology background, I’m just a computer programmer.”

    Have you considered that it is exactly my expertise that makes me worried about the non-peer-reviewed paper making such medical statement? Reviewing a paper is work as you need to be extremely careful if it is outside your specific area of expertise (which this definitely is). My experience tells me just from the formatting and general style that this is a dubious paper and not worth to spending any time looking at.
    I guess as a computer scientists you also have a good sense to tell good code from bad one just from glancing over it, don’t you?
    And yes please: disregard my tweets – they reflect opinions, not facts.

    “I understand that oxidization destroys certain molecules, and in this case, the virus lipid layer. The point about exchanging atoms is that it causes #2, whereas ClO2 does not exchange atoms, only electrons.”
    It doesn’t matter if oxidation exchanges atoms or ‘only’ electrons. Both will destroy molecular structures and thus can have adverse affects. I think you should brush up on your biochemistry.

    Now to a point that is really important to me:
    “20 million people have taken the proper dose and felt better”
    “There are plenty of benefits to ClO2 since it safely oxidizes pathogens. You ignore all the testimonials, the scientific paper, the concept of selective oxidization, and the fact it’s been used for 100 years in medicine, to make a statement there is no proven benefit.”

    I do not disagree that ClO2 does not have some use cases with proven benefit and applications. However, oral ingestion in the form of MMS has – as far as I can tell – not been reliably shown to have any benefit at all. To be specific: In evidence based medicine just having testimonials (even if there are millions) or subjective improvements is not enough to claim a ‘proven benefit’. The only way to show that something has a proven benefit is to compare it to a placebo in a well executed clinical trials. If MMS would have the extreme benefits that are claimed about it, it would be trivial to show an effect of oral ingestion in clinical trials. As far as I have found it, there is no reputable clinical trial or studies that shows any beneficial effect beyond placebo. Once there are such clinical trials in reputable, peer reviewed journals I am happy to change my opinion about this.
    So based on what I – and all the experts from health organizations such as the FDA – have seen, it seems so far really unlikely that MMS does have an appreciable beneficial effect. Recommending something without beneficial effect but with obvious dangers (e.g. ingesting a to high concentration) is thus careless.

    Also note that at the very core of ‘evidence based medicine’ is that it does not matter how beautiful (or lacking) the theory behind the mode of action of a treatment is – as long as it can be shown to be better than placebo and have no grave side effects, the treatment it is accepted as medicine.
    If somebody tells you that ‘studies are not done because of big pharma’ etc – in my opinion this is really BS. It is every researchers dream to find a ‘unexpected’, revolutionary phenomena and provide solid evidence for it, as this would provide eternal fame. If there aren’t such studies demonstrating the efficiency of a treatment, the most likely reason is that there is no solid evidence that convinced a reputable researcher enough to even try it or that all trials so far had negative results.

    “I claim it’s not dangerous because it’s been proven not to oxidize body tissue, and it breaks down into safe by-products. What other measures would you use to evaluate whether Chlorine Dioxide is safe besides those two?”
    ” You are ignoring the concept of concentration when talking about safety.”

    The point of ‘concentrations makes the poison’ is definitely not wrong and does definitely make it less bad to drink than ‘concentrated bleach’.
    Still, when I encountered the Chlorine dioxide solution in the fridge of a colleague, the solution was definitely concentrated enough to be harmful and he is by no means training in handling chemicals. Together with the reported injuries with MMS solution, I definitely can see where the FDA is coming from and why it wants to prevent people from taking the risk of harming themselves for a treatment without any proven benefits.

    Anyways, i really think this is all I have to say to this topic.

    • Hello.

      I have no idea what I think of MMS so far. I would agree that with the gravity of the FDA warnings it’s important to be very careful experimenting with something that could destroy or oxidize tissue or cells.

      However, regarding papers that test efficacy and safety of chlorine dioxide solution, I did find this one:

      I don’t recall if it is peer-reviewed etc, but it looked “legit” to me. Do you have any thoughts?

      • Hi Ryan,

        Thanks for the link to the paper!

        Just to be clear, Chlorine Dioxide is already used to sanitize donated blood, and in mouthwash, so I think it’s already proven that it doesn’t oxidize tissue.

  5. Thank you for reading it and replying! I learn from your perspective.

    Unfortunately, when writing for a general audience, the dictionary definition of bleach is not relevant. Basically everyone in America has products like Clorox bleach in their house, which they use for cleaning. I maintain it’s misleading and attempt to frighten people to use that word with regards to Chlorine Dioxide, instead of more neutral words like biocide, or oxidant. This is an FDA warning made for the general public.

    I understand that you can be concerned about the lack of a peer review, but don’t you think you should be able to find some mistakes before you get too worried? Yes, you can often tell good code from bad, even in domains you aren’t familiar with, but you don’t just look at the formatting! The paper is written for a general audience. I found it easy to read, informative and convincing. I’d love to know if you see any holes. To mention formatting and style as a reason to ignore entirely seems superficial.

    Those 20 million taking ClO2 have mostly been taking it orally.

    I’m talking about big pharma as the reason why the FDA doesn’t recommend it. It might be every researcher’s dream to discover life-saving treatments but there’s also politics involved at the FDA. That is who I wrote the emails to.

    I don’t think there are any clinical trials showing good results, but I don’t think there are any clinical trials because “everyone” thinks it’s poison. Do you see the flaw in that circular logic? In spite of all the evidence and links I’ve given, you still continue to state there’s no evidence, even though it’s used in mouthwash, water treatment, to sanitize donated blood, etc. Aren’t those facts another form of evidence about safety and efficacy?

    You don’t outlaw a life-saving drug because it’s confusing. Some people accidentally injure themselves with guns, but we don’t outlaw them because of that problem. The solution is more education, not letting people needlessly suffer and die.

    Of course, millions of people who get better (sometimes within hours) make it a proven benefit. It isn’t an RCT, but it is data that should attempt to be validated and not just ignored. You’ve spent so much time in academia you seem to be losing some common sense.

    • I really did not want to reply here and hence give my details to you, but you need to be informed on the basics.

      First off, your insistence that because it is used in mouthwash it is safe, shows just how uninformed you are because mouthwash itself is not safe, it is household cleaner and does not distinguish between you and what you are trying to kill. The fact it is allowed to be advertised as a perfectly safe mouth cleaner for everyday use is frankly ridiculous as it originates as a general household cleaner! (Listerine) If you want to know more, and see the full source etc, you can check out this video from Adam ruins Everything, which is properly checked as much as possible by their research staff using peer reviewed articles (and Listerine’s own website): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YdvFBxBD5g

      Anything that targets bacteria also targets you and causes harm, even if that harm is not visible for a while, there is a reason that toothpaste and mouthwash are for use only in the mouth (and that kids use special toothpaste), they are harmful if used improperly, which in the case of mouthwash is at all in my opinion. That being said, mouthwash can be useful to target specific problems with your gums and teeth and is therefore why it is recommended by dentists and orthodontists, but notice, they only recommend it when it is actually needed and you must follow strict instructions and use the mouthwash they prescribe.

      Furthermore, just because a chemical is safe in one specific use and combination, does not make it safe in another, there is a reason why all drugs require medical trials and FDA approval, to prevent such harmful ‘medication’ being used when it may be harmful, do note may there. But until those trials are done, nobody should recommend such an obviously potentially dangerous chemical for use, even especially as with this, even if there are no visible signs of harm (at least in the short term), it does not mean that none was done.

      In addition to this, there is thereby no scientific evidence that such a chemical does, in fact have any effect on whatever it is used on, the most dubious of all being Alzheimer’s since that is a disease of the brain involving proteins that build up as plaque, the brain is a highly sensitive area, so if this so called medication has any effect on that, it is highly likely it causes other damage to the brain and if that use is not specifically targeted at the brain and is the same or similar to the general use version, then it makes it all the more potentially dangerous.

      All this being said, I don’t pretend to have any specific knowledge about this drug, or its effects, just simple common sense and basic Googling.

      • Hi Peter,

        You could have sent me a private email. Or used any email address. WordPress doesn’t check 😉 However, I’m glad you typed something up!

        I agree that mouthwash alone doesn’t prove that it’s safe. It’s simply step 1 in trying to dispel the scary notion that it’s dangerous like Clorox, which is what the FDA is trying to say. I’ll check out the Listerine link and maybe add more comments later but do you think the FDA would ever approve a mouthwash based on Sodium Hypochlorite? Of course not! If that was the end of my argument, you would have made a good point. Of course, I discussed many other aspects also. Maybe I could clarify.

        > Anything that targets bacteria also targets you and causes harm

        I disagree that this is always true. What about something with a lower oxidation potential that isn’t strong enough to oxidize human cells, but is strong enough to oxidize the bacteria in your mouth? Suppose a chemical like that existed? Have you investigated the topic of oxidation potential? In addition, Chlorine Dioxide is also used in water treatment. Of course at lower doses, but it’s already been proven non-toxic.

        Medical trials would be great. However, first the FDA needs to reconsider the idea that it’s poison first. I’m trying to at least push for that first step. You are sure I am wrong, and we should trust the FDA, even when they don’t have any information!

        Regarding Alzheimer’s, you are probably making the same mistakes as above. In any case, you don’t disprove it can help, you just state you can’t imagine how it would happen safely. Well, maybe you should read more testimonials, and investigate it?

        Thanks for your input, please research about it more!

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *